Miranda Rights: Debunking Common Legal Protection Myths
Tana French and Stephen King are remarkable storytellers. However, some of their characters incorrectly portray a vital legal principle, mirroring a common real-life misunderstanding. Many people believe they understand their Miranda rights based on TV representations, but often, they're mistaken, which can lead to severe consequences.
Common Misunderstandings About Miranda Rights
A study involving college students and inmates revealed widespread misconceptions about rights in the criminal justice system:
Approximately 30% thought their silence could be used against them, which is incorrect.
Over half believed that police are not allowed to lie during interrogations; however, police can lie.
More than half believed that Miranda rights apply only when in custody; in reality, they are always applicable.
The Reality of Miranda Rights in Law Enforcement
A crucial misunderstanding is regarding when police are required to inform you of your Miranda rights. This differs from what some characters in Tana French’s "Dublin Murder Squad" series and Stephen King’s "Bill Hodges" trilogy suggest.
Fictional Depictions vs. Legal Reality
Major spoilers for "In the Woods" and minor spoilers for "Mr. Mercedes" and "Finders Keepers" illustrate these points.
Scene from Tana French’s In the Woods
Tana French’s In the Woods focuses on two detectives trying to solve the murder of a 12-year-old girl. The detectives eventually learn that Katharine was murdered by a man who confesses that he had conspired with the victim’s older sister, Rosalind, to do the crime.
Detective Cassie Maddox talks to Rosalind during a walk outside, using a pretext to begin the talk and try to get a confession. Once Maddox receives Rosalind to begin admitting her involvement in the murder, Maddox gives Rosalind a caution (Ireland’s equivalent of the Miranda warning used in the United States):
“If you keep talking,” Cassie snapped, too loudly, “I’m going to caution you. Otherwise –“ …
“So,” Rosalind resumed. “I decided the best thing would be to show Katy that she wasn’t really anything that special. She certainly wasn’t very intelligent. When I gave her something to –“
“You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so,” Cassie broke in, her voice shaking wildly, “but anything you say will be taken down in writing and may be used in evidence.”
Rosalind pauses for a long time. Maddox manages to get the conversation back on track and gets Rosalind to admit her involvement in the murder. Maddox then arrests Rosalind on suspicion of murdering Katharine, and the police bring Rosalind to the station.
The investigation then falls apart with Rosalind's question: “Don’t minors have the right to have a parent or a guardian present during an interview?”
The detectives check Rosalind’s age and discover that she is 17 years old, a few weeks short of her 18th birthday:
“Inadmissible,” [Maddox] said. “Every fucking word.”
Without the confession, the case against Rosalind is weak and falls apart. However, in real life, Rosalind’s confession is not as flawed as the book recounts and probably would have been admissible, at least in the United States.
Throughout the United States, police give Miranda warnings to suspects, saying that they have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. Many other countries use similar warnings, as the Library of Congress cataloged in a 2006 report. Ireland uses a “verbal caution” like the one that Detective Maddox recited to Rosalind.
The critical issue is when police have to give these warnings and cautions.
In the United States, police only give Miranda warnings when a person is in custody. Someone is in “custody” when a reasonable person would believe that they are not accessible to stop talking with police and simply walk away, such as when a person is arrested. Ireland, similarly, requires that caution be given when a person is arrested.
The United States and Ireland do not require that a person be warned or cautioned when they are not in custody, even if the police believe that the person is a suspect. Detective Maddox had not arrested Rosalind; they were talking in a public setting, and Rosalind was free to stop the conversation and leave at any time. Accordingly, Detective Maddox did not have to give Rosalind a caution, and Rosalind’s confession should have been admissible even if no caution had been given.
In the United States, Rosalind’s confession would probably still have been admissible because she had not been in custody. In federal courts, law enforcement agents are required to notify parents when a juvenile is detained, but they are not required to inform parents before interviewing a minor suspect. Similarly, while many states require parental notification for a custodial interview, a survey in 2000 found that most states do not require parental notification for a non-custodial interview.
The timing of Miranda warnings also comes up in Stephen King’s excellent Bill Hodges trilogy. Characters in both books incorrectly reference when Miranda warnings should be given.
In Mr. Mercedes, Bill secretly investigates a cold case and withholds evidence from his old partner, who starts to suspect what Bill is doing. “I want to interview you again this afternoon,” Bill’s partner says. “And this time, I may have to read you the words.”
In reality, Bill’s partner would only have to read the words to Bill if Bill was in custody, not just because he was suspected of a crime.
In Finders Keepers, Bill is a private investigator and tries to reassure a teenager that nothing the teenager says can be used against him: “Even if I was still a cop, this conversation would be inadmissible in court. You’re a minor, and there’s no responsible present to counsel you. In addition, I never gave you the words – the Miranda warning.”
In reality, the teenager in Finders Keepers would only have to read the words if he was detained by a police officer, not just because he agreed to talk to a private detective or was suspected of a crime.
Why Understanding Miranda Rights is Crucial
Why does this matter? It matters because people should always be careful about talking to law enforcement, whatever the circumstances, whether or not police have said “the words” or cautioned you. What you say can be held against you, and a mistake or misstep in what you say can get you in trouble that you could have avoided otherwise.
I’ve practiced criminal law for more than 15 years, and I’ve seen innocent people get prosecuted in part for things they said when they should have invoked their rights to silence and counsel. Once, back when I was a prosecutor, I took over a case with an alleged “confession,” but I suspected it was more like the “confession” in My Cousin Vinny. I investigated this, confirmed my suspicions, and dismissed the case. Fortunately, the defendant had not been in jail while the charge hung over her head.
Advice for Interacting with Law Enforcement
If you are approached by law enforcement, the safest answer is probably: “I’m willing to cooperate but want to consult with a lawyer first.” That should shut down the inquiry and protect you while being somewhat polite.
The Variability of Miranda Warnings
One final thing about Miranda! Another big misconception is that all Miranda warnings are the same. The U.S. Supreme Court set out the basic concepts, but hundreds of variations are used nationwide. Here is my take on what a suitable Miranda warning would look like:
You have the right to remain silent.
If you remain silent, your silence cannot be used against you in a criminal trial or case.
If you choose to speak, anything you say could be used against you later, so it’s essential to be as accurate and truthful as possible.
You have the right to counsel.
You can consult with a lawyer before answering any questions.
You can have a lawyer present with you while answering any questions.
You can seek a court-appointed lawyer for free if you cannot afford to hire one.
If you say, “I want a lawyer,” law enforcement cannot ask any questions until you consult a lawyer.
If you waive your rights, you can re-assert them later but not take back anything you said.
Stephen Chahn Lee has written about the intersection of pop culture and the law for his entire legal career, most recently in “Modern Detection,” which focuses on lessons drawn from real-life and fictional investigations. Sherlock Holmes dreamed of writing a “textbook which shall focus the whole art of detection into one volume,” Stephen’s articles attempt to fulfill that dream in the modern age. Stephen’s analysis of the Sherlock Holmes stories has been featured in Harper’s magazine, and he was inducted in 2024 as a member of the Baker Street Irregulars.
For further insights on Miranda Rights or legal guidance on healthcare fraud defense, please contact Stephen Lee Law.
Sources
Rogers, Richard, Rogstad, Jill E., Gillard, Nathan D., Drogin, Eric Y., Blackwood, Hayley L., and Shuman, Daniel W. (2010). Everyone Knows Their Miranda Rights: Implicit Assumptions and Conflicting Evidence.
Conway, Vicky, Daly, Yvonne, and Schweppe, Jennifer. Irish Criminal Justice: Theory, Process and Procedure.
In re Watson, 47 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio 1989). The Ohio Supreme Court's decision regarding the parental notification requirement before the custodial interrogation of a minor.
Additional acknowledgment:
Special thanks to Dr. Eric Drogin for insights on Miranda rights and legal consultations.
